-
Because the plan wasn't to dissolve it? I've no idea why Discovery bought GCN+, but I doubt they bought it with the intention of shutting it down within three years.
I'd imagine that they realised that it was costing more than it was bringing in , especially as they produced a lot of content that barely anyone watched from what I've heard, and decided to streamline the racing coverage, which is, hopefully, generating revenue, into an existing brand, rather than running two with the associated overheads.
andyp-
I've no idea why Discovery bought GCN+, but I doubt they bought it with the intention of shutting it down within three years.
Unless they planned on moving over the subscribers to Discovery + to increase their subscriber base to their main platform and boost the value of that? Same goes for TNT sports which gives you access to that, so presumably adds 'subscribers'? What this doesn't explain is why they pumped so much money into developing a separate streaming platform in the interim, so you're probably right about not realising the overheads of running parallel platforms in multiple regions.
Prole.
? Plenty of people on here support gcn and the free streaming alternatives are quite bad. This is classic corporate saturn devouring his sons and it is gross to see the dedicated cycling coverage — probably the best and most easily available ever— get canned due to planned consolidation. Why buy gcn if the plan was to dissolve it in three years?